Conflict Management:Conflict Escalation

Conflict Escalation: A Five Phase Model Susan and Theresa had been business partners in their professional practice for

20 years. The practice was very successful, but Susan and Theresa had grown apart in lifestyles, goals, and attitudes. They did not discuss these changes with each other. Instead, as is so often the case, they let small annoyances fester. After awhile, they stopped communicating. Business was conducted through memos or their staff.

Theresa retained a lawyer, who advised her to file a partnership dissolution action. Her lawyer, seeking maximum impact, had the complaint served on Susan two days before Christmas while Susan was at home with her family. Susan, outraged, retained the toughest lawyer she could find.

The case became expensive. Clients were caught in the fight and left the firm. The attorneys' fees were $10,000 per month. The office was in chaos. At Theresa's deposition, Susan's lawyer was very aggressive, suggesting by the questions that Theresa had committed fraud, when that was not the case. Theresa, furious at Susan, refused to consider any overture of settlement.

Finally, after months of acrimonious pretrial preparation and tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, the parties became financially and physically exhausted. On the advice of their lawyers, they agreed to mediation and after three days of discussions the partnership issues were resolved.

This case illustrates the power and danger of conflict escalation.

Conflict escalation Conflict escalation is a gradual regression from a

mature to immature level of emotional development.

In other words, as conflicts escalate through various stages, the parties show behaviors indicating movement backward through their stages of emotional development.

Glasl's escalation model

Glasl's escalation model is valuable as a means for sensitizing people to the mechanisms of conflict escalation.

This sensitizing may lead to a greater awareness of the steps we should take to avoid a conflict from escalating out of control.

Conscious efforts are needed in order to resist the escalation mechanisms, which are seen as having a momentum of their own.

(Recall the case we just discussed)

Fragmentation of the enemy

Together into the abyss

Images and coalitions

Loss of face

Strategies of threats

Limited destructive blows

Hardening

Debates

Actions, not words

Stage model of conflict escalation (F. Glasl)

STAGE 1: HARDENING The first stage of conflict escalation develops when a difference

over some issue or frustration in a relationship proves resilient to resolution efforts.

The problem remains, and leads to irritation.

Repeated efforts to overcome the difficulties fail.

Interests and opinions crystallize into standpoints, i.e. fixed positions on how a certain issue ought to be handled.

These standpoints tend to become mutually incompatible in the perception of the conflict parties.

The members of a party develop a shared interpretation of the situation, creating a common perception of all relevant information.

Members of one party readily pick up negative information about the other party and given great significance, positive information is ignored.

Differences between the parties appear more significant than similarities.

Interactions with the other side are disappointing, and are perceived as a waste of time and energy.

Even though the other party is perceived as stubborn and unreasonable, the persons involved are still committed to resolving the differences.

As the efforts fail, the parties start to doubt that the counterpart sincerely wants to solve the problems.

The communication between the parties is still based on mutuality and the persons involved are still considered as responsible human beings.

The threshold to stage 2 is taken when one or both parties lose(-s) faith in the possibility of solving the problems through straight and fair discussions. (Nawaz – Zardari)

STAGE 2: DEBATES AND POLEMICS In stage 2, discussions tend to develop into verbal confrontations.

The parties look for more forceful ways of pushing through their viewpoints/ standpoints.

In order to gain strength, they tend to become increasingly locked into inflexible standpoints. (Govt. vs. Lawyers movement)

The dispute is no longer restricted only to a well-defined issue, but the parties start to feel that their general position is at stake.

Accumulating tactical advantages over the counterpart becomes an important concern.

When rational and issue-relevant arguments don't suffice to ensure success, the parties resort to: Bickering about the underlying causes of the present problems, in order

to avoid blame;

Strong exaggeration of the implications and consequences of the counterpart's position, in order to present it as absurd;

Suggestive comments about the relation of the central issue with other concerns, linking the issue to larger value considerations.

Reference to recognized authorities or tradition in order to gain legitimacy for a standpoint;

Stating the alternatives as extremes, in order to get the opponent to accept a "reasonable compromise."

These tactical tricks aim at keeping the counterpart off balance emotionally or at gaining the upper hand.

This tends to further mistrust in the relationships.

Discussions turn into debates, where inflexible standpoints collide with each other.

However, at stage 2 the parties are still partly committed to common goals and interests, and tend to vacillate between cooperation and competition.

The growing mistrust creates a sense of insecurity and loss of control.

The parties try to compensate for this by an increased emphasis on a self-image as righteous and strong.

The threshold to stage 3 is reached when one party feels that further talking is useless, and start acting without consulting the other side, the conflict slips into stage 3.

STAGE 3: ACTIONS, NOT WORDS At stage 3, the parties no longer believe that further talk

will resolve anything, and they shift their attention to actions.

Common interests and the prospect of resuming cooperation recede into the background, and the parties see each other as competitors.

The most important goal at this stage is to block the counterpart from reaching his goal, and to push through one's own interests.

By unilateral action, the parties hope to force the counterpart to yield, but they would not yield under any circumstances to the pressure from the counterpart.

Since there is no trust, action and non-verbal communication dominate the course of events.

This tends to speed up the escalation process.

The threshold to stage 4 is veiled attacks on the counterpart's

social reputation, general attitude, position and relationship to others.

STAGE 4: IMAGES AND COALITIONS At stage 4 the conflict is no longer about concrete issues,

but about victory or defeat.

Defending one's reputation is a major concern.

Conflict parties start to attribute collective characteristics both to members of the other side and to in-group members.

Individuals are perceived to have certain characteristics only by virtue of belonging to a specific group. such as

unreliability, incompetence, bossiness, etc.)

The negative images are now screens that occupy the field of vision whenever the parties meet each other.

These screens prevent the parties from seeing each other's true complexity and individuality.

The other side's image is vehemently rejected, but at the same time each party tries to get the other side to recognize their own other-image.

The interactions are permeated with efforts to find gaps in the behavioral norms in order to inflict harm on the counterpart.

The rules are adhered to formally, but any opportunity to get away with unfriendly acts are used.

Blows can be dealt through ambiguous comments and body language.

However, since the other party can not respond by openly discussing the incident, retaliatory action is very likely to ensue.

In this stage, the parties actively try to enlist support from bystanders. (Mumbai attacks, Lawyers’ movement)

Actions to enhance one's image in the eyes of others are planned and implemented.

The parties also consciously seek to stage their confrontations in public, in order to recruit supporters.

The conflict activities are now focused on affecting the counterpart and gaining the upper hand in the power struggle, rather than achieving issue-related results.

Attacks are made on the identity, attitude, behavior, position and relationships of the counterpart.

The threshold to stage 5 is constituted by acts that lead to a public loss of face for one or both parties.

STAGE 5: LOSS OF FACE

The word "face" signifies here the basic status a person has in a community of people.

Loss of face means that the conflict parties feel that they have suddenly seen through the mask of the other party, and discovered

an immoral, insane or criminal inside.

The whole conflict history is now reinterpreted: one feels that the other side has followed an immoral strategy from the very beginning.

All their "constructive" moves were only deceptive covers for their real intentions.

There is no longer ambiguity, but everything appears clear.

The images and positions parties hold are no longer of superiority and inferiority, but in terms of angels and devils.

One's own side is a representative of the good forces whereas the other side represents the destructive, subhuman, and heartless forces.

The counterpart is no longer only annoying, but an personification of moral corruption.

All seemingly constructive moves of the counterpart are dismissed as deceptions, while one single negative incident is conclusive proof of the true nature of the other.

This leads to a situation where it is extremely difficult to build mutual confidence.

Incidents leading to loss of face are usually followed by dedicated attempts by the parties to rehabilitate their public reputation of integrity and moral credibility.

The threshold to stage 6 is reached when the parties start to issue ultimata and strategic threats, the conflict enters stage 6.

STAGE 6: STRATEGIES OF THREATS Since no other way seems to be open, the conflict

parties resort to threats of damaging actions, in order to force the counterpart in the desired direction.

Strategic threats are actively used in order to force the counterpart to certain concessions. (Nawaz’s impending disqualification)

There are three phases in the increase of issuing strategic threats:

1. The parties issue mutual threats in order to show that they will not retreat.

The threatening party wants:

to draw attention to themselves and their demands;

to demonstrate autonomy and ability to form the agenda; and

to get the counterpart to conform with a specific demand or norm by issuing a threat of sanctions. (either you are with us or….)

2. In the next step the threats are made more concrete, explicit and firm.

The parties make dedicated statements of self-commitment from which they cannot retreat without losing credibility, in order to enhance the seriousness of their threats. (the events are out of your control…)

3. In the third phase, the threats are formulated as ultimatum, where the counterpart is forced to an either-or decision.

One consequence of this dynamic is that the parties increasingly lose control over the course of events.

By their own actions they create a pressure to act rapidly and radically.

The perception of the situation becomes increasingly out of touch with reality.

The threatening party sees only its own demands, and regards the threat as a necessary in order to block the counterpart from using violence.

One expects the other party to yield to the pressure.

The threatened party, however, sees the damaging consequences if the threat becomes reality, and rallies to issue a counter threat.

Feelings of being powerless lead to fear and possibly uncontrollable rage.

A serious risk in stage 6 is that

stress, uncontrollable aggressive actions, and increasing turbulence and complexity

lead to disintegration of the parties into smaller units acting autonomously. (Qasim Zia, Taseer)

When this happens, not even binding agreements between the main actors may stop the destructiveness.

When the parties actively seek to harm the other side’s potential, the conflict transforms to stage 7.

Threat strategies only work as long as the parties believe that a threat may act deterring. However, the very internal dynamics of stage 6 drive the parties to translate the threats into action.

STAGE 7: LIMITED DESTRUCTIVE BLOWS

The threats of stage 6 undermine the basic sense of security of the parties. Now they expect the counterpart to be capable of very destructive acts.

Securing one’s own further survival becomes an essential concern.

The counterpart is regarded as an impediment that must be eliminated by targeted attacks aiming to maim the other.

STAGE 7: LIMITED DESTRUCTIVE BLOWS

The counterpart is now a pure enemy, and has no longer human qualities.

This may go as far as using words like "eliminate" and "exterminate" when discussing what to do.

The objectives now revolve around neutralizing the firepower of the counterpart, and thereby secure one’s own survival.

Superiority is sought in order to ensure ability to block the counterpart in a longer-term perspective.

There is no longer any real communication.

In stage 7 each party is only concerned with expressing their own message, and they don’t care about how it is received, or what the response might be.

This is war, and normal rules do not apply.

The parties see that it is no longer possible to win.

It is a lose-lose struggle. Survival and less damage than the counterpart suffers are the main goals.

The threshold to stage 8 is attacks that are directly aimed at the core of the counterpart, attacks that are intended to shatter the enemy or destroy his vital systems.

STAGE 8: FRAGMENTATION OF THE ENEMY

At this stage the attacks intensify and aim at destroying the vital systems and the basis of power of the adversary.

Negotiators, representatives and leaders may be targeted, in order to destroy their legitimacy and power in their own camp.

When a party is attacked in a way that threatens to shatter it, it is forced to make strong efforts to suppress internal conflicts.

This increases the stress and the internal pressure within the parties, and leads to an even stronger pressure to undertake further attacks on the other side.

The parties fall apart into factions that fight each other, making the situation completely uncontrollable.

The main objective is now to destroy the existence basis of the adversary.

The only restraining factor is the concern for one’s own survival.

The threshold to stage 9 is reached when the self-preservation drive is given up.

When this happens, there is no check at all on further destructiveness.

STAGE 9: TOGETHER INTO THE ABYSS

In the last stage of conflict escalation, the drive to annihilate the enemy is so strong that even the self-preservation instinct is neglected.

Not even one's own survival counts, the enemy shall be exterminated even at the price of destruction of one's own very existence as an organization, group, or individual.

Ruin, bankruptcy, prison sentences, physical harm, nothing matters any longer.

All bridges are burnt, there is no return.

A total war of destruction without scruples and remorse is waged.

There are no innocent victims, no neutral parties.

The only remaining concern in the race towards the abyss is to make sure that the enemy will fall too.